www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - version.html doc. bug

reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html

This example is wrong:

class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug:
int flag;
}

It should be:
class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug int flag;
}

- Dave
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:

 At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html
 
 This example is wrong:
 
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug:
 int flag;
 }
 
 It should be:
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug int flag;
 }
 


Forgive me, what is wrong with the example as it stands?  Its working valid D
and 
illustrates the 'debug' attr-stmt, albeit in a cheesy NoOp sort of way.

-- Chris Sauls
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:26:02 -0500, Chris Sauls wrote:


 Dave wrote:

 At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html
 
 This example is wrong:
 
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug:
 int flag;
 }
 
 It should be:
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug int flag;
 }
 


 
 Forgive me, what is wrong with the example as it stands?  Its working valid D
and 
 illustrates the 'debug' attr-stmt, albeit in a cheesy NoOp sort of way.
 


However, this fails ...

class Foo
{
  debug:
   int flag1;
  this()
  {
  debug:  //  found ':' instead of statement
   int flag2;
  }
}


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
10/09/2005 9:02:14 PM
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <1j8s5arhhzgdn.urwa8lhaj35j$.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:26:02 -0500, Chris Sauls wrote:


 Dave wrote:

 At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html
 
 This example is wrong:
 
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug:
 int flag;
 }
 
 It should be:
 class Foo
 {
 int a, b;
 debug int flag;
 }
 


 
 Forgive me, what is wrong with the example as it stands?  Its working valid D
and 
 illustrates the 'debug' attr-stmt, albeit in a cheesy NoOp sort of way.
 


However, this fails ...

class Foo
{
  debug:
   int flag1;
  this()
  {
  debug:  //  found ':' instead of statement
   int flag2;
  }
}


Yes, and:

- The BNF doesn't specify the ':' form.
- The ':' form is not consistent with how version(id), debug(id) and the other
compiler conditionals work.

So, I think the example is wrong, which is fine with me (rather than adding more
fluff to the language and being inconsistent).

- Dave
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:

 In article <1j8s5arhhzgdn.urwa8lhaj35j$.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:26:02 -0500, Chris Sauls wrote:



Dave wrote:


At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html

This example is wrong:

class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug:
int flag;
}

It should be:
class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug int flag;
}


Forgive me, what is wrong with the example as it stands?  Its working valid D
and 
illustrates the 'debug' attr-stmt, albeit in a cheesy NoOp sort of way.


However, this fails ...

class Foo
{
 debug:
  int flag1;
 this()
 {
 debug:  //  found ':' instead of statement
  int flag2;
 }
}


 
 
 Yes, and:
 
 - The BNF doesn't specify the ':' form.
 - The ':' form is not consistent with how version(id), debug(id) and the other
 compiler conditionals work.
 
 So, I think the example is wrong, which is fine with me (rather than adding
more
 fluff to the language and being inconsistent).
 
 - Dave
 
 


It isn't inconsistant.  All the attributes and attr-statements (such as
'version' and 
'debug') work with the ':' form, and here's the kicker, /outside of function
bodies/. 
Personally I think even that is a needless restriction, since the ':' form
means to 
perpetuate/propogate a given attribute until either the current scope ends or a 
contradictory attribute is reached (or in the case of attr-statements, the
corresponding 
'else' clause is reached).

For documentation, check out:
http://digitalmars.com/d/attribute.html

-- Chris Sauls
Sep 10 2005
parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dfvbnf$628$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Chris Sauls says...

Dave wrote:

 In article <1j8s5arhhzgdn.urwa8lhaj35j$.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:26:02 -0500, Chris Sauls wrote:



Dave wrote:


At http://digitalmars.com/d/version.html

This example is wrong:

class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug:
int flag;
}

It should be:
class Foo
{
int a, b;
debug int flag;
}


Forgive me, what is wrong with the example as it stands?  Its working valid D
and 
illustrates the 'debug' attr-stmt, albeit in a cheesy NoOp sort of way.


However, this fails ...

class Foo
{
 debug:
  int flag1;
 this()
 {
 debug:  //  found ':' instead of statement
  int flag2;
 }
}


 
 
 Yes, and:
 
 - The BNF doesn't specify the ':' form.
 - The ':' form is not consistent with how version(id), debug(id) and the other
 compiler conditionals work.
 
 So, I think the example is wrong, which is fine with me (rather than adding
more
 fluff to the language and being inconsistent).
 
 - Dave
 
 


It isn't inconsistant.  All the attributes and attr-statements (such as
'version' and 
'debug') work with the ':' form, and here's the kicker, /outside of function
bodies/. 
Personally I think even that is a needless restriction, since the ':' form
means to 
perpetuate/propogate a given attribute until either the current scope ends or a 
contradictory attribute is reached (or in the case of attr-statements, the
corresponding 
'else' clause is reached).

For documentation, check out:
http://digitalmars.com/d/attribute.html

-- Chris Sauls


It doesn't work (v0.131) with either version or debug and the BNF specific to
debug and version doesn't specify it so either that example is wrong or the
docs. are inconsistent and the compiler is wrong.

- Dave
Sep 10 2005